Morons.

[Boris Badenov]

Using your logic, why even paint lines on the road if people are going to get in accidents anyways?

Er, that seems to be your logic as well, since you're willing to permit the holocaust of innocent children by reckless, dangerous, evil low time pilots just to satisfy your personal, greedy, unnecessary desire to fly.

It's about reducing unnecessary risk. The economy isn't going to bottom out if homebuilders have to take their a/c out to the country.

And it's going to bottom out if student pilots can't buzz around urban centers? I, ahem, think you might have overestimated your importance to the economy there, Ptolemy.

While I don't agree with your sarcastic suggestion of limiting student pilots to non-congested areas, I wouldn't say that the idea is absurd by any means.

I'm really more concerned about the under-30 drivers. They're a fricking plague on the roads. Yet nothing is being done. Why am I so concerned? Because I'm not under 30 anymore.

When you get in your car and drive on the road, you assume a certain degree of risk. You shouldn't have to assume any risk sitting in your bed at night.

Wow, now that's the sort of gratuitous, meaningless, emotive, effeminate hand-wringing that makes the internet so awesome. You can still get hit by a meteor or a jet engine, burned alive by a careless neighbor with a spaceheater, or just have a heart-attack all in the safety and comfort of your sanctum the bed. Life is risk, and sooner or later we're all going to die. You're quite right of course that the purpose of (many) laws is to mitigate that risk while attempting to balance the freedoms of the citizens.

My point is simply that you're in favor of limiting this freedom because you don't have a personal interest in it and therefore consider it expendable, not because you've done a sober analysis and determined that it's extremely hazardous to the public at large. Open manhole covers are a greater threat to the populace than homebuilt aircraft (by orders of magnitude, I'd wager), as are cases of people getting drunk and drowning their dumb asses, but no one seems to be leading the charge to institute a crash program to increase manhole-cover safety or outlaw booze within 50 feet of water.

Aircraft accidents are exciting because people are all still basically dirt-worshipping savages at heart, and they're not really sure these damn things should fly at all, and they're for damn sure scared to death of them, deep down, no matter what they say. So they get insanely disproportionate coverage. This does not equate to anything even remotely resembling a "public threat".

"So what?", say you. "Me, why, I'm not getting near one of those things no matter what anybody says, so I'd rather not have them flying over me either." The problem is that if we think in this selfish, egotistical manner about everyone else's freedoms, sooner or later someone's going to have a bright idea or two about something you DO care about.

One of the most ass-backwards things in the world is that its ten times easier to make a law than to repeal one.

 

[slushie]

It's really hard now because we've had two of these accidents in 6 days.
And VGT is a psycho airport where you gotta be on your toes.

I agree that low-time experimentals need some cushion, but it's the rest of the operations that Randy walker says should go somewhere else that pisses me off. He's the DIRECTOR OF AVIATION, and he's not helping anything. They tried "airport rules" at north las vegas to move the undesireables away, they made the pilot lounge and everything else crappy so that maybe all the business jets would go to HND, and they want all GA out of North Las Vegas (you're not allowed to restrict types of operations). Where is all the training supposed to go? Jean? Well...they're building that massive intl airport out that way, so that will soon be populated....

and VGT was there first. That airport was there during the war!

 

[tonyw]

Right on, time to thin the herd.

If we were living in the time where natural selection was still taking place, I'd love having these people with me when I was going hunting in an area with predators.

Know why?

I'd just point to them if a bear was going to attack and hope the bear figured out it's a lot easier to kill them and eat them.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Er, that seems to be your logic as well, since you're willing to permit the holocaust of innocent children by reckless, dangerous, evil low time pilots just to satisfy your personal, greedy, unnecessary desire to fly.



And it's going to bottom out if student pilots can't buzz around urban centers? I, ahem, think you might have overestimated your importance to the economy there, Ptolemy.



I'm really more concerned about the under-30 drivers. They're a fricking plague on the roads. Yet nothing is being done. Why am I so concerned? Because I'm not under 30 anymore.



Wow, now that's the sort of gratuitous, meaningless, emotive, effeminate hand-wringing that makes the internet so awesome. You can still get hit by a meteor or a jet engine, burned alive by a careless neighbor with a spaceheater, or just have a heart-attack all in the safety and comfort of your sanctum the bed. Life is risk, and sooner or later we're all going to die. You're quite right of course that the purpose of (many) laws is to mitigate that risk while attempting to balance the freedoms of the citizens.

My point is simply that you're in favor of limiting this freedom because you don't have a personal interest in it and therefore consider it expendable, not because you've done a sober analysis and determined that it's extremely hazardous to the public at large. Open manhole covers are a greater threat to the populace than homebuilt aircraft (by orders of magnitude, I'd wager), as are cases of people getting drunk and drowning their dumb asses, but no one seems to be leading the charge to institute a crash program to increase manhole-cover safety or outlaw booze within 50 feet of water.

Aircraft accidents are exciting because people are all still basically dirt-worshipping savages at heart, and they're not really sure these damn things should fly at all, and they're for damn sure scared to death of them, deep down, no matter what they say. So they get insanely disproportionate coverage. This does not equate to anything even remotely resembling a "public threat".

"So what?", say you. "Me, why, I'm not getting near one of those things no matter what anybody says, so I'd rather not have them flying over me either." The problem is that if we think in this selfish, egotistical manner about everyone else's freedoms, sooner or later someone's going to have a bright idea or two about something you DO care about.

One of the most ass-backwards things in the world is that its ten times easier to make a law than to repeal one.

I'm admittedly way too drunk at the moment to take on this entire message, but let me provide a summation - I don't have anything against home builders - in fact, I respect them simply because I don't have a pair big enough to fly anything I've built myself.

But anytime someone crashes a GA a/c into a home, it hurts our obsession - it makes it that much more difficult to justify a freedom that the public allows us to have. That's right - none of us has a right to fly over someone's home - we're given the opportunity to do so, as long as we strive to do it in a safe and respectful manner.

Here it is plane and simple - I don't ever want to be in a situation where my ability to fly a manufactured, meticulously inspected a/c over an urban area is brought into question because some yahoo forgot to tighten a few bolts while building his own a/c in his garage. Before you lay into me - I know, the majority of home builders are careful and considerate. That being said, they don't have the same liability that a manufacturer does - and they also don't have a group of people making decisions - they have one.

I see limiting home builts to non-congested areas as a compromise. It's something that we give back to the public for them to allow us to fly manufactured a/c over their homes. It's a fine balance, but we're in the minority - and as long as we show that we're more interested in the safety of the public than our own autonomy, they'll continue to allow us to pursue our passion.

Too drunk to finish - hopefully that got my point across.

 

[pacer7a]

. . . brought into question because some yahoo forgot to tighten a few bolts . . .

Yeah, I hear you about the image for GA issue. But even the pros make those mistakes. Post-maintenance crashes are surprisingly common. Wasn't there an airshow F117 stealth fighter crash into a residential neighborhood resulting from the wing attach failing due to 4 out of five bolts missing ?

So even the best of the best gimp it up now and then.

The fight is against complacency, not so much incompetence. After all, no one is looking to go on a suicide mission, right ?

 

[RICHARD5]

The REAL value of the internet is opportunity to every now and then come across a gem like Boris' last post. Frickin awesome....:rawk:

 

[BillH]

I agree 100% with Boris. Geez wiz! When I go to bed tonight I hope a turbocharged engine does not fall off an experimental and crushes me while I sleep!!!
Theres about a billion times better chance of a foriegn student pilot crashing his 152 into my apartment by the way...
I would hate to have to repaint the side of the apartment.

 

[slushie]

hey, the first of the two was a Velocity...

 

[trafficinsight]

I'm admittedly way too drunk at the moment to take on this entire message, but let me provide a summation - I don't have anything against home builders - in fact, I respect them simply because I don't have a pair big enough to fly anything I've built myself.

But anytime someone crashes a GA a/c into a home, it hurts our obsession - it makes it that much more difficult to justify a freedom that the public allows us to have. That's right - none of us has a right to fly over someone's home - we're given the opportunity to do so, as long as we strive to do it in a safe and respectful manner.

Here it is plane and simple - I don't ever want to be in a situation where my ability to fly a manufactured, meticulously inspected a/c over an urban area is brought into question because some yahoo forgot to tighten a few bolts while building his own a/c in his garage. Before you lay into me - I know, the majority of home builders are careful and considerate. That being said, they don't have the same liability that a manufacturer does - and they also don't have a group of people making decisions - they have one.

I see limiting home builts to non-congested areas as a compromise. It's something that we give back to the public for them to allow us to fly manufactured a/c over their homes. It's a fine balance, but we're in the minority - and as long as we show that we're more interested in the safety of the public than our own autonomy, they'll continue to allow us to pursue our passion.

Too drunk to finish - hopefully that got my point across.

:banghead:

You're kidding me right?

 

[msmspilot]

I'm admittedly way too drunk at the moment to take on this entire message, but let me provide a summation - I don't have anything against home builders - in fact, I respect them simply because I don't have a pair big enough to fly anything I've built myself.

But anytime someone crashes a GA a/c into a home, it hurts our obsession - it makes it that much more difficult to justify a freedom that the public allows us to have. That's right - none of us has a right to fly over someone's home - we're given the opportunity to do so, as long as we strive to do it in a safe and respectful manner.

Here it is plane and simple - I don't ever want to be in a situation where my ability to fly a manufactured, meticulously inspected a/c over an urban area is brought into question because some yahoo forgot to tighten a few bolts while building his own a/c in his garage. Before you lay into me - I know, the majority of home builders are careful and considerate. That being said, they don't have the same liability that a manufacturer does - and they also don't have a group of people making decisions - they have one.

I see limiting home builts to non-congested areas as a compromise. It's something that we give back to the public for them to allow us to fly manufactured a/c over their homes. It's a fine balance, but we're in the minority - and as long as we show that we're more interested in the safety of the public than our own autonomy, they'll continue to allow us to pursue our passion.

Too drunk to finish - hopefully that got my point across.

Well, on Aug 4, someone crashed a 172 into a house in Oregon. 5 dead (3 on the ground). So maybe we should restrict all airplanes from flying over houses? The homebuilt part of this has not yet been shown to be the problem.

Also, you occasionally hear a news story about a car crashing through the person's bedroom. Should we restrict all driving within a certain radius of "the yellow areas of the sectional"?

I realize it's a media problem, but the media only covers airplane accidents because they're so rare. People ask me about the latest airplane accident that's on the news. I answer with something to the effect of they're investigating and I try not to speculate in these cases. They're next question is almost always something about the safety of small planes. I ask them if they feel safe in their small car (because buses are safer). The lightbulb comes on for most.

 

[surreal1221]

I have to say. . .I thought this thread was going to be about some more TSA idiots doing something moronic.

A little disappointed.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Well, on Aug 4, someone crashed a 172 into a house in Oregon. 5 dead (3 on the ground). So maybe we should restrict all airplanes from flying over houses? The homebuilt part of this has not yet been shown to be the problem.

Also, you occasionally hear a news story about a car crashing through the person's bedroom. Should we restrict all driving within a certain radius of "the yellow areas of the sectional"?

I realize it's a media problem, but the media only covers airplane accidents because they're so rare. People ask me about the latest airplane accident that's on the news. I answer with something to the effect of they're investigating and I try not to speculate in these cases. They're next question is almost always something about the safety of small planes. I ask them if they feel safe in their small car (because buses are safer). The lightbulb comes on for most.

We try to control for every reasonable variable we can to keep this from happening - what I'm saying is that I consider someone building their a/c themselves with minimal regulation and liability to be a variable of excess risk. What this comes down to is that I see restricting these a/c to non congested areas to be a reasonable safety precaution.

Here is what I think to be the best example to combat the logic against my argument. A year or so ago a guy was displaying his dragster in a town parade or something. He started to perform a burnout, but then the car got loose on him and went into the crowd - killing several people, including children.

Now I'm sure over on dragstercareers.com, guys are saying things to the effect of "this was a terrible mistake - but some morons think we should ban dragsters from city streets! Cars lose control all the time - why single out dragsters!" As reasonable people, we can see the argument for such a ban - it's an unnecessary risk compared to standard motor vehicles.

This probably comes down to an argument over where home builts are more dangerous than manufactured planes - and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm admittedly biased because I live in a place where homebuilts go down in great numbers - although not always due to mechanical issues. Hell, the best way to kill a couple of homebuilt pilots is to host a GA fly in.

Again, I'm not against home builts - I just think people should take them out into the country - for everyone's safety.

 

[OldTownPilot]

....a manufactured, meticulously inspected ..........fly manufactured a/c .........

I will have a manufactured airplane......how else do you get an airplane. They don't magically appear


It all comes down to individual fights to live. If I survive my flight, so will the people on the ground. There is just as many "homebuilders that forgot to tighten a bolt" as there are normal category airplanes decades out of annual with several thousand hours since TBO on the engine.

From my experience talking to airplane owners, and just observing their actions, the homebuilders have much more pride in ownership of their airplane, afterall it was more than just money that got them the airplane.

Normal category planes just like yours and even airliners crash into houses "all the time" too, using your logic, shouldnt all airplanes be banned from flying over houses too? It's kinda hard to get anywhere if you can never fly over houses.

Think about it.

 

[Gonzo]

How about we just close the airpark (CLW). Your logic is BS. When someone builds their own plane they know if they make a mistake they will more then likely end up dead, so most try to be 110% sure they are ok. Now most plane makers are about making money and they know a few planes crashing a year is OK, so if the cost to fix a problem is more then the insurance. They will just pay the insurance for claims.

 

[Murdoughnut]

How about we just close the airpark (CLW). Your logic is BS. When someone builds their own plane they know if they make a mistake they will more then likely end up dead, so most try to be 110% sure they are ok. Now most plane makers are about making money and they know a few planes crashing a year is OK, so if the cost to fix a problem is more then the insurance. They will just pay the insurance for claims.

I don't follow how my logic is BS. I don't agree that we need to close the airpark - that being said, if all of a sudden a plane was going down around the airpark every month, then I might change my mind.

We're the stewards of our profession/hobby here - we alone can control public opinion by how we fly. If you see a plane flying into a home and killing a family as just an "insurance write-off" then I wouldn't expect you to understand my point.

We don't own the sky - we're just allowed to use it - so long as we do so responsibly.

 

[Gonzo]

We're the stewards of our profession/hobby here - we alone can control public opinion by how we fly. If you see a plane flying into a home and killing a family as just an "insurance write-off" then I wouldn't expect you to understand my point.

It isn't how I see it ( I think it suck and is sad if it didn't have to happen), it is how the plane makers see it. Hell Boeing has known about the fuel tank problem for how many years and has no fix for it. WHY? The cost to fix the problem is to high. Yep tell the family's of the people on TWA 800 it was cheaper to pay them off then fix the problem. Most home builders don't care about money because it is their life on the line.

 

[OldTownPilot]

Cessna bases their decisions in Dollars, not lives.

I base my decisions on my life (and therefore yours) not Dollars.

 

[surreal1221]

Which is the significant difference between aircraft manufactuers and those who have to trust them.

In essence, man made devices are not to be trusted.

 

[msmspilot]

We try to control for every reasonable variable we can to keep this from happening - what I'm saying is that I consider someone building their a/c themselves with minimal regulation and liability to be a variable of excess risk. What this comes down to is that I see restricting these a/c to non congested areas to be a reasonable safety precaution.

Here is what I think to be the best example to combat the logic against my argument. A year or so ago a guy was displaying his dragster in a town parade or something. He started to perform a burnout, but then the car got loose on him and went into the crowd - killing several people, including children.

Now I'm sure over on dragstercareers.com, guys are saying things to the effect of "this was a terrible mistake - but some morons think we should ban dragsters from city streets! Cars lose control all the time - why single out dragsters!" As reasonable people, we can see the argument for such a ban - it's an unnecessary risk compared to standard motor vehicles.

This probably comes down to an argument over where home builts are more dangerous than manufactured planes - and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm admittedly biased because I live in a place where homebuilts go down in great numbers - although not always due to mechanical issues. Hell, the best way to kill a couple of homebuilt pilots is to host a GA fly in.

Again, I'm not against home builts - I just think people should take them out into the country - for everyone's safety.

I disagree that because one dragster, one time, had an accident, that we should ban them. Same thing has happened with speed boats. Same thing has happened with everyday stuff. Yes, we control variables, but our society has gotten in its collective head that everything is supposed to be perfectly safe.

What hasn't been discussed by you is the regulation already in place. The FAA has to certify the airplane as airworthy before it can be flown and it has to have a certain number of hours before it can be flown with passengers. Obviously there is some provision to allow the plane to be flown over populated areas to get to and from the airport, but in general, they can't be flown outside a certain test area (designated by the FAA) until they have a certain number of hours. I'm not an expert, and someone else here probably knows a lot more about the details of the reg, but I have a big disagreement with you about the relative safety of a "manufactured, meticulously inspected a/c" versus a homebuilt. I have seen home builders do their thing, and most are more meticulous than any A&P I've ever seen work on a "manufactured" airplane.

 

[BajtheJino]

Ptolemy.

Oh no you didn't!
Welcome to your new home my friend-America: Land of the Free, Home of the Brave-ruled by the cowardly minority.

Manufactured Airplanes. Deadlier than Manufactured homes?